Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 17, 2016 at 4:35 AM in reply to: o/t “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Thoughts? #804531December 17, 2016 at 4:35 AM in reply to: o/t “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Thoughts? #804530
CA renter
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]Zero Hedge, always with the even-handed analysis: https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/809466335499612160%5B/quote%5D
I’m not on twitter, so might be missing what they’re trying to communicate here (assuming that you’re indicating that they were wrong or not even-handed in their analysis), but my reading of the twitter feed linked here is that they’re showing how many abominable actions by governments are often said to be “conspiracy theories” and “fake news,” when, in reality, they are absolutely true and factual. Many “conspiracy theories” turn out to be conspiracy facts.
It looks like they are saying that censorship and government control of the media is dangerous. I agree wholeheartedly with their assessment.
—————–
But it’s not just Zero Hedge, this is from the site of one of the senators who introduced the legislation.
Another perspective:
Counter-Propaganda Bill Quietly Creates US Propaganda Factory
………….A pro-censorship article about it in the Washington Post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_Foreign_Propaganda_and_Disinformation_Act
=======================
Let’s not forget that they are basing this on the fraud and collusion that was exposed in the Wikileaks releases during the primary and general election seasons. All of the information that was released was true, and it proved what many who witnessed these manipulations were saying for months (and were called “conspiracy theorists” as a result).
Instead of going after those who were involved in the corruption and collusion, they are choosing to go after those who exposed it. This is a very disturbing occurrence.
CA renter
Participant[quote=spdrun]I don’t get the opposition to taxes. I’d be glad to pay a sizable chunk of my income in tax if I had a family, in exchange for certain guarantees.
(1) My kids get a decent public education no matter what happens to me
(2) My kids have access to secondary education at low cost
(3) My family has access to healthcare at low cost with minimal risk of medical bankruptcy
(4) Government retirement system (read: Social Security) remains well-funded
(5) Infrastructure and public transport systems are well maintained
(6) Things like the environment, food quality, and drug efficacy are well-regulated to prevent corporations harming the public. Also, working hours are regulated and vacation time is guaranteed as a matter of health and safety.Problem with the US isn’t our taxes are terribly high — it’s that we don’t get much back for the tax money spent. We waste it on homicide sprees abroad (aka, power projection) and abuse of our own citizenry (overpolicing, mass incarceration, war on the bugaboo of the week).[/quote]
Bingo. We could cut our military spending in half and still out-spend every other country on the planet. The Military Industrial Complex has been running the show for far too long. Think of where we would be WRT healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. if we hadn’t spent all this money on wars that most of us (those of us who pay attention to what’s going on in the world) never wanted.
And the notion that cutting taxes while increasing military spending will magically make deficits disappear is pure idiocy.
Trickle-down economics has NEVER worked. Why do so many people still believe in it?
CA renter
Participant[quote=phaster][quote=CA renter]
[quote=phaster]
there’s nothing illegal or unethical about inheriting property and prop 13 IMHO is a spurious and tangential topic, but what the hell i’ll play alongi’ll be the first to admit i’m lucky to have a legacy which allows me some financial breathing room, and because of that i’m a pretty chill landlord who has never raised a tenant’s rent once they are in (kind of keeping with my parents management tradition), and appreciate prop 13 making costs predictable with respect to property taxes
as for how the market values RE (like an apt rental) I have no control over that, since it’s a global marketplace that is influenced by among other things the feds dual mandate to keep unemployment low and keep inflation in check @ around 2% (as explained in a planet-money podcast)
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/30/496136504/episode-727-you-asked-for-it-again
as I see things, prop 13 is an economic moderator to keep TPTB in check and seems to have come about because TPTB were unable to moderate things in the first place
BTW seems your rants/proposals about “reforming” prop 13 are kinda like the rest of your economic analysis,… WORTHLESS DELUSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! (took me all of two minutes of googling to find a study, with simple statement in the summary section that disproves a belief I’ll bet you’ve held for decades)
[/quote]Again, there’s your reading comprehension problem (and I taught comprehension, so know what I’m talking about with respect to that, too).
3.) Your claim that Prop 13 isn’t related to the pension problems also highlights your ignorance.
The #1 revenue source for most municipalities is property tax. If property taxes are not paid at the market rate, it absolutely affects their financial health and their ability to fund the pensions.
It’s pretty apparent that you are totally unfamiliar with how government entities operate.
Even phasters “talents” post includes a link to a study where they discuss a “split-roll” property tax scheme acknowledges that it would bring in an additional $6 billion per year, and that study only includes industrial and commercial buildings — the study does not include residential properties — no rental homes or apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, etc., nor does it include vast tracts of land that are taxed well below market rate. Again, if you did even a bit of “Googling,” as phaster did, you would know that.
[/quote]god help us, because your admitted “talent” of teaching reading comprehension is yet more one sided idiotic bravado
its true “the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion” BUT YOU’RE DELIBERATELY IGNORING ADVERSE EFFECTS (note to all the report states as a result),… “Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lostover the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year.”
[quote=publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu]
The Economic and Employment Effects of the Split RollThe economic and employment effects of the split roll are significant and, because of the removal of the Proposition 13 cap on growth in assessments, the impacts would likely continue to grow over time. The baseline scenario presented in this section represents the mid‐range estimate of these economic and employment effects. It assumes that the split roll is instituted in 2013 and that the initial adjustment results in the increase of property taxes by some $6 billion. Note that this is a significant increase in a tax stream that only totaled approximately $50 billion in 2009‐10.
The following table summarizes the five‐year estimated impacts of splitting the property tax roll on employment in California. Overall it is estimated that 396,345 jobs would be lost over the first five years of the proposed tax increase—a number that would grow in each subsequent year. Five years later, in 2021‐22, the annual estimated impact would total almost 112,000 additional jobs lost annually.
page 13
let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself
FWIW you do have a talent that’s consistent and actually harmful, sadly some share your BS delusion
your posts YET AGAIN demonstrate an inability to integrate middle school math and basic reading comprehension skills
http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=5#comment-262974
http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=6#comment-264989
this only reinforces my prognostication that the lack of “talents” by custodians and beneficiaries of the various portfolios will cause of the inevitable economic public pension debt bomb crisis few in government want to ponder (perhaps because of past “sins” like the three decade practice of a 13th pension payment, which the SDCERS board approved yet again, despite a recent $380 million “debt” spike)
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sdut-13th-check-2015dec18-htmlstory.html
[quote]
SDCERS Board Approves 13th Check and Corbett Benefits for 2016
November 4, 2016The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) Board of Administration approved the payment of the “13th Check” supplemental benefit and the Corbett settlement benefit for eligible retirees. Eligible retirees will receive the payment as part of their November 2016 monthly retirement benefit.
The “13th Check” and Corbett settlement benefits are paid in years when the realized investment earnings of the fund are sufficient to pay them.
https://www.sdcers.org/News/Latest-News/By-Category/13th-Check-and-Corbett-,-Board,-News-Articles-,.aspx
https://www.sdcers.org/Forms-Publications/Annual-Reports.aspx
[/quote][quote]
San Diego facing new pension debt
September 8, 2016A recent $380 million spike in San Diego’s pension debt is forcing city officials to debate whether to begin paying that bill now or take the controversial step of pushing the financial pain several years down the road.
…The spike, which is the result of a new actuarial study showing that city employees and retirees are living significantly longer, would increase the city’s annual pension payment — $261 million this year — by $35 million, or more than 13 percent.
That increase would help the city continue to cover annual pension benefits for retired employees and continue steadily paying down its unfunded, long-term pension liability, which the new study increased from $2 billion to nearly $2.4 billion.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer and the City Council created the city’s first pension stabilization fund last spring with a $16 million initial contribution, but they didn’t expect the money to get wiped out in one year.
[quote]
Handbook of Frauds, Scams, and Swindles: Failures of Ethics in Leadership (edited by Serge Matulich, David M. Currie)Though SDCERS investments were earning well above the 8 percent rate of return estimated by the system actuaries, under normal conditions investments surpluses are required to make up for below-average returns in other years to achieve the average rate of return. Therefore, unless the actuaries’ estimates are grossly incorrect, in the long run true “surplus earnings” are impossible. The use of surplus earnings for the purposes other than maintaining the pension system, such as to expand existing benefits should be viewed as a loan from the system THAT WILL REQUIRE REPAYMENT IN THE FUTURE.
page 286

I’m apprehensive what the next four years will bring in the economic and political realm, but agree with a statement president elect Trump made,… “We will never fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place.”
[quote=CA renter]
October 1, 2014 – 9:23pmYes, I’ve been following the pension issue for many, many years (far, far, far longer than you have), and I have also worked with negotiating committees and have done research for public employee unions.
http://piggington.com/how_will_unfunded_pensions_affect_economy?page=3#comment-247382
[/quote][/quote]The “study” that you’ve mentioned got two things wrong. They modeled it based on their being no cap at all on commercial/industrial buildings, when a modified cap is just as likely to be an option. The fact is that commercial/industrial properties don’t appreciate like housing because the value is always based on revenue potential, as opposed to housing which is priced according to more subjective, emotional criteria. If new commercial/industrial owners can break even or clear a profit while paying market rate taxes, so can the legacy owners. Businesses might change, but prices and rents would reach an equilibrium rather quickly.
This “study” also left out all residential buildings, including rental homes, apartment buildings, etc. And they’ve also excluded raw land (think Pardee, for instance). They’ve left out people like yourself — people who’ve inherited valuable property, but pay only a fraction of the market-rate property taxes on it.
So this study both understates the revenue, and overstates the costs. It’s also important to note that they’ve based this study on economic models/theories (and we’ve seen how well that’s worked out in the past), not actual numbers, for obvious reasons.
As for your quote here: “let me guess, you’re going to respond by saying the academic report I found by googling is all part of a grand conspiracy by individuals like harvey, to take away earned entitlements of honest hard-working public employee union members who have contracts that were dutifully researched by individuals like yourself[.]”
You could have done a little more Googling to find that this “study” was issued by the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. Before it was merged with Pepperdine, it was called “Common Sense California,” and it was founded by Peter G. Peterson. Who is Peter Peterson?
…………
Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite numerous organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over “unsustainable” federal budget deficits. In 2007, he made a fortune from the public offering of the private equity firm he co-founded, Blackstone Group, and pledged to spend $1 billion of this money to “fix America’s key fiscal-sustainability problems.” He endowed this money to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which he launched in 2008 (see below for more).[1] His son, Michael A. Peterson, is the President and Chief Operating Officer of the foundation.
Move over, George Soros and the Koch brothers. The Los Angeles Times has dubbed Peterson “the most influential billionaire business figure in national politics. . . . He isn’t content merely to express concern about the federal deficit. His particular targets are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which he calls ‘entitlement’ programs and which he wants to cut back in a manner that would strike deeply at the middle class.”[2]
From 1963 to 1971, Peterson was the Chairman and CEO of Bell and Howell Corporation. He also worked briefly in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon as Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs (1971) and as Secretary of Commerce (1972). He also served as a chairman of Nixon’s National Commission on Productivity and as the U.S. chairman of the “U.S.-Soviet Commercial Commission.”[3]
Peterson was later the Chairman and CEO of the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers (1973-1977) and its successor firm, Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb (1977-1984). He is also the former Chairman and co-founder of the private equity firm, Blackstone Group, and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He was also Chairman for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the founding Chairman of the Institute for International Economics (IIE), and the co-founder of the Concord Coalition.[4]”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_Peterson
…………….
And the study was sponsored by the Small Business Action Committee. Here’s what they do:
The Small Business Action Committee (SBAC) is a California organization which, according to its website, is focused on fighting for small business interests. The SBAC focuses on issues of workers compensation reform, taxes, regulatory harassment, tort reform and health care; which they believe burden small businesses making it difficult to stay in business.[1] They say, “SBAC plans to attack problems of regulations on small business growth; and the organization is committed to an advocacy campaign to convince policymakers the importance of a healthy business environment.”[2]
https://ballotpedia.org/Small_Business_Action_Committee
………….
One of the authors of this “study” has been opposing any reforms to Prop 13 for decades, as well.
Nope, no conflicts of interest there, phaster! Reading comprehension (and research) problems, indeed!
And I can assure you that you’re far less clever than you think you are, phaster. Who pays you to troll? You keep posting these same rambling, delusional posts with goofy pictures and nonsensical rants about your supposed greatness and wisdom. You never respond to any of the pointed comments and questions asked of you.
Answer the question, phaster.
[quote=CA renter]
Wow. You win the award for delusional, rambling posts; and your sense of entitlement is breathtaking. You were lucky enough to have parents who were in the right place at the right time, and it sounds like they made some good decisions. That’s great, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor with you inheriting what your parents worked for. The problem is with taxpayers subsidizing your profits to the tune of thousands of dollars each and every year. You did NOTHING to earn this subsidy, and the only reason you’re getting it is because other equally-situated people with generally more economic and political power than the average citizen changed the law so that you could obtain this subsidy by inheriting property from your parents. Just based on your posts, I’d guess this subsidy is in the $7,000-$15,000 range, every single year.
Of course, I’m not even counting the subsidy you received when you didn’t have to pay cap gains taxes on the assets you’ve inherited since you got to step-up the costs basis at the time of inheritance.
Again, how in the world do you think you should be more entitled to this Prop 13 subsidy (not to mention the cap gains subsidy) — that you didn’t do a single thing to earn — than the people who have worked for many decades for their pensions (and whose pension income is taxed at the standard “earned income” rate, even if their money comes from long-term gains and qualified dividends)?
Just answer that — and leave the ridiculous cartoons, memes, and other junk out of your response.[/quote]
CA renter
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sticky-wage-theory.asp%5B/quote%5DRight, we absolutely need to base economic policy on an unproven theory you found on the internet. Did you notice that there isn’t a single historical example in that article?
Since this is a real-estate board, here’s a question about your deflation solution:
What happens when millions of homeowners see the value of their home decline below the outstanding balance on their mortgage?
What happens when property tax revenue decreases?
Oh wait…I just watched this show…[/quote]
1.) Investopedia doesn’t write articles. It’s an encyclopedic source of information that is geared toward economic terms, definitions and explanations.
2.) Once again, you might indulge in a little bit of “finding information on the internet” yourself before embarrassing yourself when you post comments that show a clear lack of understanding about a particular subject.
It’s odd that someone who claims to have advanced degree(s) from top universities wouldn’t know how to research something, even if that means doing a cursory search on the internet.
So, here’s a new bit of information for you, Mr. Finance Expert:
“Downward nominal wage rigidities, wage growth, and unemployment
Downward nominal wage rigidities are a well-documented feature of the U.S. labor market (see, for example, Akerlof, Dickens, and Perry 1996 and Card and Hyslop 1996). With that in mind, Daly and Hobijn (2014) introduce a model to illustrate how such rigidities can affect the relationship between unemployment and wage growth. Downward rigidities prevent businesses from reducing wages as much as they would like following a negative shock to the economy.”
[FYI, all economic theories are theories, and many of these theories have never been proven in real life. That being said, the “stickiness of wages” during downturns is a well-known and well-documented occurrence. I’ll leave it up to you to read the original studies quoted here…or, does the Federal Reserve Bank not count as an acceptable source of information for you, either?]
3.) What happens when the value of people’s homes drops below what they owe? In a normal market where mortgages were properly underwritten, and where people put 20% down on a property, not much happens at all. The only thing that changes is the number of short sales (they obviously increase), where people sell their home for less than they owe, for those who need to sell their homes during the downturn.
Most people who purchase a home with the expectation of living in it (as opposed to speculating on its value) will not change their behavior much at all if they don’t intend to sell it.
The reason that so many people walked away from their homes after the bubble popped was because they had stretched their finances so thinly, so they were relying on non-stop appreciation which enabled them to use their homes as low-interest-rate credit cards by cash-out refinancing and HELOC’ing their homes every year. They would then use that money to pay for basic necessities, including their mortgage payments.
No appreciation >>> no increasing their credit limits >>> no mortgage payments. It was easy to forecast what was going to happen, even when all the “experts” were saying that people wouldn’t walk away from their homes and mortgage obligations.
CA renter
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]This is what we got under Bush and Obama (thanks largely to the Federal Reserve). What we need is deflation so that we can reset our economy and put the brakes on the speculative excesses that drive up prices (but not wages, because those are not “investments” that will benefit the investors). We’ve experienced a gross misallocation of resources, and the resulting price/cost inflation (outside of wages) has eroded the purchasing power of millions of Americans and millions (billions?) of working people and fixed-income recipients around the world.[/quote]
Because when the price of everything else is going down, the cost of labor will stay the same.
Employers will just keep issuing those paychecks…[/quote]
CA renter
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Bernie couldn’t get Zaphyr Teachout elected in Blue NY.
He could not get prop 61 passed in blue CA.
He didn’t do particularly well yesterday eitherI was very surprised by Teachout’s loss. Not sure what happened there, as she has a tremendous reputation and is far more likely to “drain the swamp” than Trump would be.
The pharmaceutical industry threw a lot of money at opposing Prop 61. That being said, I spoke with an attorney — a very liberal/progressive person — who manages claims at the VA, and she said that Prop 61 could just as likely raise prices at the VA, so that would have forced the govt to pay more there, and forced regular patients to pay more, too (but maybe less than now?). I voted for it, but know that it wasn’t as clear-cut as some might think.
CA renter
Participant[quote=ltsdd]
Increased spending with little or no real economic growth leads to the devaluation of our currency which will ultimately leads to inflation.[/quote]
This is what we got under Bush and Obama (thanks largely to the Federal Reserve). What we need is deflation so that we can reset our economy and put the brakes on the speculative excesses that drive up prices (but not wages, because those are not “investments” that will benefit the investors). We’ve experienced a gross misallocation of resources, and the resulting price/cost inflation (outside of wages) has eroded the purchasing power of millions of Americans and millions (billions?) of working people and fixed-income recipients around the world.
CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i wish jill couldve done a little better. id have thpught theres more thsn 1 percent who are just envi r onment voters.[/quote]
Many of us are very surprised (and skeptical) about the vote percentages for Stein. I have a hard time believing that she got so few votes.
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Looks like the Bernie people are voting for Hillary. Not much protest voting on the left
With a Trump threat looming, the left gets behind Clinton
Final polls show Hillary Clinton enjoying party loyalty comparable to that of Barack Obama in his two campaigns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/07/with-a-trump-threat-looming-the-left-gets-behind-clinton/?hpid=hp_hp-bignews3_democrats-9p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory%5B/quote%5DI know a lot of *very active* Bernie supporters. Very few were disappointed that Hillary lost. While many Bernie supporters either wrote in Bernie’s name or voted for Jill Stein (including myself), a surprising number voted for Trump outright, many of them are people of color who know that the real divide is economic, not social.
After eight years of “hope and change” that brought even more wealth and power to the elite that we were fighting against in 2007-2008, people were done with the theatrics, propaganda, and empty words. We were going to have a populist president as the outcome of this general election, and there were only two choices: Bernie Sanders (the honest one with the integrity and long, consistent track record to back up what he was saying) or Donald Trump (a moronic tool of the elite who was used to “frighten” the unthinking into voting for HRC).
The DNC made their bed; now, they will have to lie in it. We warned them that this would happen.
CA renter
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]The reason Prop 13 passed (because, unlike you, I was actually living here at the time, and remember all the ads and the discussions regarding this proposition) […][/quote]
LOL, how old were you in 1978?
The hilarious part of your rants on property taxes is that I agree with you: Property tax laws in CA unfairly favor inheritance. After all – as you constantly like to remind the Piggs – not all of us were born here. But that shouldn’t make us second class citizens, right?
You also seem to be missing the point that nobody on this thread has claimed they are entitled to to any favorable tax treatment, nor has anybody even defended the existing tax policies. That’s a concept that you injected into the conversation through a combination of projection and reading comprehension failure. Nobody is even arguing with you about tax policy, and yet you continue to rant.
The property tax issue has nothing to do with the pension crisis – other than the fact that you see raising someone else’s taxes as as a band aid solution. And you have not presented any data (i.e. numbers) that supports the idea that your “robbing Peter to pay Paul” proposal would even come close to providing adequate funds.
As an aside, I do suggest you come up with a consistent position on your claims about the importance of “research.” On another other thread you are claiming expertise about Turkey and the complexities of thousands of years of Middle Eastern culture – just because you did some googling. Have you ever been to Turkey?
But on this thread you claim there’s no way someone could understand one well-documented law in California unless they actually lived here when it was passed.
It’s cute, in a pathetic way, how you regularly flip-flop the standards in order to declare yourself smarter than everyone else.[/quote]
1.) Old enough to remember the advertisements and the lively discussions about Prop 13.
2.) You stated: “…nobody on this thread has claimed they are entitled to to any favorable tax treatment, nor has anybody even defended the existing tax policies…”
Really?
[quote=phaster]
PROP 13 ??? = NOISE[/quote]
[quote=harvey]
Real estate is taxed – money flows from the landowner to the state. There are no subsidies, regardless of how often you misuse the term.
[/quote]
And, even though I’ve pointed this out to you before, your reading comprehension issues apparently cause you to forget information that you’ve read, so I’ll repeat it, yet again.
“What is a ‘Subsidy’
A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.”
[Emphasis in bold is mine. -CAR]
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp
[quote=FlyerInHi]It doesn’t matter than pensionsers earned anything. If the municipalities can’t live up to their contacts, the courts are where the disputes should be resolved.
No need to change state laws to benefit pensioners.
Let the municipalities deal with their liabilities within the tax framework that existed when they signed the contracts.[/quote]
And I just picked these out from the page before this one. I don’t feel like dredging through all of the other pages, and all of the other threads, where people try to defend their property tax subsidies.
Oh, and there was this one from phaster’s rant about his “talents.”
[quote=phaster]
there’s nothing illegal or unethical about inheriting property and prop 13 IMHO is a spurious and tangential topic, but what the hell i’ll play along
i’ll be the first to admit i’m lucky to have a legacy which allows me some financial breathing room, and because of that i’m a pretty chill landlord who has never raised a tenant’s rent once they are in (kind of keeping with my parents management tradition), and appreciate prop 13 making costs predictable with respect to property taxes
as for how the market values RE (like an apt rental) I have no control over that, since it’s a global marketplace that is influenced by among other things the feds dual mandate to keep unemployment low and keep inflation in check @ around 2% (as explained in a planet-money podcast)
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/30/496136504/episode-727-you-asked-for-it-again
as I see things, prop 13 is an economic moderator to keep TPTB in check and seems to have come about because TPTB were unable to moderate things in the first place
BTW seems your rants/proposals about “reforming” prop 13 are kinda like the rest of your economic analysis,… WORTHLESS DELUSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!! (took me all of two minutes of googling to find a study, with simple statement in the summary section that disproves a belief I’ll bet you’ve held for decades)
[/quote]
Again, there’s your reading comprehension problem (and I taught reading comprehension, so know what I’m talking about with respect to that, too).
3.) Your claim that Prop 13 isn’t related to the pension problems also highlights your ignorance.
The #1 revenue source for most municipalities is property tax. If property taxes are not paid at the market rate, it absolutely affects their financial health and their ability to fund the pensions.
It’s pretty apparent that you are totally unfamiliar with how government entities operate.
Even phasters “talents” post includes a link to a study where they discuss a “split-roll” property tax scheme acknowledges that it would bring in an additional $6 billion per year, and that study only includes industrial and commercial buildings — the study does not include residential properties — no rental homes or apartment buildings, second homes, inherited properties, etc., nor does it include vast tracts of land that are taxed well below market rate. Again, if you did even a bit of “Googling,” as phaster did, you would know that.
4.) As for Turkey…no, I’ve not been there. But I have talked with a number of people who are familiar with the situation there, and I read a lot of books, magazines, research articles, opinion pieces, etc. about politics and economics, and have done so for many years (almost all of my books focus on political and economic issues). My mother had a degree in anthropology from UCLA, and we traveled extensively and lived in other countries when I was younger (my mother did visit Turkey, and also traveled throughout the Middle East, the USSR, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia etc.). Nearly all of our family friends were immigrants from around the world, and I worked with, and for, immigrants in every job I’ve ever had (and worked for Syrians and Israelis for a number of years, with whom I talked at great length about these topics). My birth family was very politically active, and I have continued the tradition of being very politically active and engaged, and make a point of reading as much as I can, in addition to talking with as many people as possible, from all walks of life, and who hold a variety of political and economic opinions and political positions.
What differentiates me from you is that I do read and study the issues about which I’m willing to debate (I rarely debate topics about which I’m unfamiliar…I listen/read, and ask for clarification, instead). Your reference to “Googling” is strictly from you, and has nothing at all to do with me. That being said, although I wouldn’t expect you to do the kind of reading and research that I do, you could **at least** do a little bit of Googling so that you could gain even a tiny bit of knowledge about a topic before you attempt to debate, rather than pull a load of horse manure and ad hominem attacks out of your behind and throw it at the wall, hoping that nobody will call you on it (for the record…I will always call you on it).
What is research?
” noun re·search ri-ˈsərch, ˈrē-ˌ
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of research: careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something
: the activity of getting information about a subject
Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary
Examples: research in a sentenceFull Definition of research
1
: careful or diligent search2
: studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws3
: the collecting of information about a particular subject”http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research
You might want to try it sometime.
CA renter
ParticipantBrian, I’ve always cared about the health of public entities, and that means that they need access to capital at a reasonable price.
Yes, I want higher interest rates, but not because there is a financial crisis. I want higher (actually market) rates because I want to prevent asset price bubbles so we can ameliorate the deep recessions and depressions caused by the Fed’s boom-bust policies.
They do need to budget better, but pensions are only one part of the puzzle. I have personally seen far more egregious spending on other items. They are already quite efficient, and do use modern technology. But changing to new technologies often costs more money than what they initially believed they would save with the new system/technology. All spending should be conservative and thoroughly thought through before making any spending commitments.
November 1, 2016 at 7:35 AM in reply to: OT: Battle Ground Zero: Murrieta: Invasion of America #802931CA renter
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, the situation is Turkey in no way justifies the anti immigrant ugliness in America.
That you would draw a connection reveals your own self.[/quote]Yeah, they’re a bit different. Turkey has a population of around 75 million and has 2.5 million Syrian refugees. US has a population of about 320 million, and we’ve taken in 10,000 Syrian refugees. To be comparable, the US would have over 10 million Syrian refugees.[/quote]
What matters is perception (if people feel they will be “outnumbered” at some point, or lose social/economic/political power as a result of the changes), along with the way in which the govt distributes the refugees/immigrants. More often than not, these refugees are moved to an area that is already struggling, and that can place a greater burden on the local infrastructure, housing market, and labor market.
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, you,re conflating everything and it’s not helpful in solving problems.
Some municipalities mismanaged their finances and deserve to go bankrupt. There is a process for that.
The state is a sovereign and cannot to bankrupt. But the state can change the laws and redo contracts.
If in the process bond holders lose money, then they’ll be more careful lending in the future. i don’t support raising taxes to pay for past budgets.[/quote]
Brian, I’m not conflating anything. Multiple people have suggested making it easier to allow cities and states to go BK. As a sidenote, BG already pointed out that a city’s going BK does not guarantee that pensions would be renegotiated. It’s even more likely that bondholders would take the primary hit, so borrowing costs would become extremely burdensome if BK were made easier. And it’s possible to allow states to go BK, but that would require Congress to amend the federal BK code. Of course, the issues with access to capital and borrowing costs would apply to the states, as well.
I guess the question is more about whether or not someone is actually concerned about the financial health of government entities, or if they are more concerned about “getting revenge” on those who organized and fought for their rights as workers, while the private sector employees bought the propaganda about unions being a negative thing and global competition/free trade a good thing, and lost a tremendous amount of economic and political power as a result.
CA renter
Participant[quote=flyer]CAr, as you know from my posts over the years, both my wife and I come from families who have owned properties here for over a century, many of which we have inherited, and we both realize our good fortune (wrt real estate) was simply based upon being related to people who happened to be at the right place at the right time and who had the vision and the means to create a successful enterprise that we have continued to develop.
That said, I completely understand how there are many aspects of this situation wrt to property taxes, etc., that seem unfair to other taxpayers, and I can understand how there would be interest in legislating change. To that, I can only say that I believe that anyone in our same position would have taken advantage of these opportunities just as we have, but, perhaps it is time to reevaluate the situation from a different vantage point, and I wish you the best on your crusade.[/quote]
Flyer, there is nothing unethical about accepting a subsidy that is legally available to you. I’ve also benefited from Prop 13 on inherited property, and stand to benefit even more in the future.
I’m just trying to point out to some of the folks here that we need to eliminate the subsidies, for which there is no legal or moral justification, from those who never earned them *before* we break a contract with people who have worked for and earned what was promised to them.
The people who benefit from these unearned subsidies are the last people who have any right to criticize those who’ve worked for what they’ve earned (though I have always advocated for some changes that would shore up many of the weaknesses in the public pension systems).
-
AuthorPosts
